NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently a bunch of fools are trying to stop supplies from reaching our troops in Iraq. Thats a good way of showing your support of our country. :rolleyes:'
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/200981.html

Hoo-boy.

no thats a protest that involved the police hurting people

if they wanted to actually stop the flow of supplies they would of sabotaged the supply ships

Then they would be terrorists and in REAL trouble.

Has anyone looked closely at the second photograph on the left-hand side of the article, the black and white one?

The one where the Policeman is macing the protestors? The protestors who are trying to shield themselves whilst unarmed and lined up against a fence?

Apparently a bunch of fools are trying to stop supplies from reaching our troops in Iraq. Thats a good way of showing your support of our country. :rolleyes:'
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/200981.html
one might argue that someone trying to stop a war which is killing their countrymen is showing support for their country. I mean its not like America is democracy or anything in which people are free to express their opinions.

no thats a protest that involved the police hurting people

if they wanted to actually stop the flow of supplies they would of sabotaged the supply ships

Has anyone looked closely at the second photograph on the left-hand side of the article, the black and white one?

The one where the Policeman is macing the protestors? The protestors who are trying to shield themselves whilst unarmed and lined up against a fence?

Whats not mentioned in the article is the rock throwing and how the protestors are using children as human shields.

Has anyone looked closely at the second photograph on the left-hand side of the article, the black and white one?

The one where the Policeman is macing the protestors? The protestors who are trying to shield themselves whilst unarmed and lined up against a fence?

Not the OP, evidently.

one might argue that someone trying to stop a war which is killing their countrymen is showing support for their country. I mean its not like America is democracy or anything in which people are free to express their opinions.

Well thats a strange way of doing so, those supplies might just save some lives.

Not the OP, evidently.

I saw it. Evidently.

I saw it. Evidently.

I stand corrected. Evidently. ;)

I stand corrected. Evidently. ;)

Im glad to see your informed of my optical perceptions. Evidently.

Whats not mentioned in the article is the rock throwing and how the protestors are using children as human shields.

Yes, presumably because it didn't happen.


Well thats a strange way of doing so, those supplies might just save some lives..

American lives possibly, though those wouldnt be on the top of my list of priorities at this stage. The odds are it will go towards killing more Iraqis, however, and they have suffered enough. Why doesnt the US start shipping their soldiers back in, rather than more crap out?

Then they would be terrorists and in REAL trouble.

sabotage =/= terrorism

Has anyone looked closely at the second photograph on the left-hand side of the article, the black and white one?

I ignored it thinking it was a flashback to Vietnam

Whats not mentioned in the article is the rock throwing and how the protestors are using children as human shields.

protesters bring there kids along and usually it becomes a nice day out so I want to see this evidence of human shields please

also since when did protesters morph into one large entity?

sabotage =/= terrorism

Debateable, and it really depends on the situation, whether effort is made to avoid casualties, etc.

I ignored it thinking it was a flashback to Vietnam

Protesters back then could be pretty violent.

protesters bring there kids along and usually it becomes a nice day out so I want to see this evidence of human shields please

Don't hold your breath.

also since when did protesters morph into one large entity?

lol

That second photo where the cops are spraying them
it looks like there trying to get them to move away from the fence which I assume moves to the side to allow trucks through.
so ya...cops dont seem to be being to brutal or anything.

Well thats a strange way of doing so, those supplies might just save some lives.

evidently OP missed the unloading of supplies part :p

protesters bring there kids along and usually it becomes a nice day out so I want to see this evidence of human shields please



http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/12/seditious-anti-war-protestors-use-kids-as-human-shields/

evidently OP missed the unloading of supplies part :p

*Sigh* Unloading to be repaired, as in they will send them back.

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/12/seditious-anti-war-protestors-use-kids-as-human-shields/

Thats a bad link. Not just because its to a ranting fuckwit with no credibility instead of something resembling a news source, but an actual bad link.

Thats a bad link. Not just because its to a ranting fuckwit with no credibility instead of something resembling a news source, but an actual bad link.

Ill try to fix it.

Ill try to fix it.

Better yet, find something off some other local source. I don't think that saying Rush Limblaugh, Malkin or World Net Daily are unreliable sources counts as 'poisoning the well'.....more like pointing out the dead bodies surrounding it.....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310544,00.html

Note the last part.

sabotage =/= terrorism



I ignored it thinking it was a flashback to Vietnam



protesters bring there kids along and usually it becomes a nice day out so I want to see this evidence of human shields please

also since when did protesters morph into one large entity?

You've never been part of a MechaProtestor? You don't know what you're missing.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310544,00.html

Note the last part.

I have. They don't say they used the children as shields. They imply it, but they don't say it.
They don't have pictures/video of them using children as shields either, which strikes me as odd, because if I was a right wing dirt bag with that kind of muck to sling, you can be fucking sure I'd have them slapped all over the net by now....

Good the way the delayed the trucks though. More of this, I say.

Good the way the delayed the trucks though. More of this, I say.

Yea! The more troops die in Iraq from lack of supplies and materials the better for leftists everywhere!

Their right to do this is not in any way protected by the law. While what they are doing is an arguably more effective method of protest, it is illegal because they are blocking the road without a permit (i assume, i do not know this). So they get their point across, then the police remove them because they are in the way. If they refuse, the police make them move. sounds perfectly reasonable with respect to both parties.

Debateable, and it really depends on the situation, whether effort is made to avoid casualties, etc.

:eek: I was only talking about damaging the rudder

*Sigh* Unloading to be repaired, as in they will send them back.

no seeing as how the supplies are attached to the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division (such a catchy name)

Note the last part.

erm...it says that children where present

The more troops die in Iraq from lack of supplies and materials

:confused:

the better for leftists everywhere!

what are these "leftists" of which you speak :confused:

SNIP

I think the point OP is trying to make is that they are all traitors who should be shot

edit: woo two posts from me who could ask for more?

Has anyone looked closely at the second photograph on the left-hand side of the article, the black and white one?

The one where the Policeman is macing the protestors? The protestors who are trying to shield themselves whilst unarmed and lined up against a fence?

Is that the fence line or part of the mentioned barricade? It's in a parking lot so I wonder?...

Is that the fence line or part of the mentioned barricade? It's in a parking lot so I wonder?...

I don't think its in a parking lot. Theres a bike lane close to use, a double line in the middle, and a bike lane on the far side of the road.

I don't think its in a parking lot. Theres a bike lane close to use, a double line in the middle, and a bike lane on the far side of the road.

You are right. For some reason the double line didn't register.....

Apparently a bunch of fools are trying to stop supplies from reaching our troops in Iraq. Thats a good way of showing your support of our country. :rolleyes:'
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/200981.html

Hmmm.

Something like 70% of our population consistently say they don't support the Bush regimes little war. Merely being a supermajority apparently isn't enough to actually get anything done. Don't be too surprised if more protests take place. Direct action often follows suppression of the popular will.

Then the would be terrorists and in REAL trouble.translation "anyone against the Bushite War is a terrorist"

"you are.. either with US or against US."-- Dear Leader, November 6, 2001

Hmmm.

Something like 70% of our population consistently say they don't support the Bush regimes little war. Merely being a supermajority apparently isn't enough to actually get anything done. Don't be too surprised if more protests take place. Direct action often follows suppression of the popular will.

Hey! Its the communist guy who thinks that america is ebil!

translation "anyone against the Bushite War is a terrorist"

with US or against US.

Read my comment in full context, dont be a fool.

Hey! Its the communist guy who thinks that america is ebil!

I don't ever remember seeing him saying he is a communist, nor that America is evil. He criticises the government of the US and asserts that the war does not have popular support, which I presume he can back up with sources to opinion polls. Fail.

I don't ever remember seeing him saying he is a communist, nor that America is evil. He criticises the government of the US and asserts that the war does not have popular support, which I presume he can back up with sources to opinion polls. Fail.

Hehehe it was in another thread, you had to be there.

Read my comment in full context, dont be a fool.If the protesters/saboteurs/terrorists/heroes/activists would succeed blocking the Supplies.. Then I would want honor them for having the courage to do something about it.. unlike the pussies we have at the Democratic Congress.

Someone's terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter.

Hehehe it was in another thread, you had to be there.

Another thread. Not this one. So... not only irrelevent and wrong, but actually off-topic, too. Well done.

I notice you used your little ad hominem frippery in place of an actual response to the point I made...

Yea! The more troops die in Iraq from lack of supplies and materials the better for leftists everywhere!

You do realize that these were supplies going from the port to Ft. Lewis, not the other way around, right?

Yea! The more troops die in Iraq from lack of supplies and materials the better for leftists everywhere!

No, the deaths are not better for "leftists". The "left" would prefer if the troops were withdrawn and part of that means not sending over more supplies and it means not increasing any funding or providing any more funding for the war.

In fact, fewer troops would die if they were withdrawn, and the number of attacks would go down. This would also reduce the likelihood of further civilian deaths.

Basra attacks down 90% since British left (http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/middle-east/basra-attacks-down-90-since-british-troops-left-1221511.html)

Nice little precedent we've got here, set by the British withdrawal.

Supporting the troops means recognising when the danger is greater than the possible benefit.

If the protesters/saboteurs/terrorists/heroes/activists would succeed blocking the Supplies.. Then I would want honor them for having the courage to do something about it.. unlike the pussies we have at the Democratic Congress.

Someone's terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter.

The person I was talking to said to sabotage the ships, I responded that it would become terrorism. Terrorism is not exclusively in the hands of muslim fanatics you know.

You do realize that these were supplies going from the port to Ft. Lewis, not the other way around, right?

MAN...read all my comments...its not rocket science...

Terrorism is not exclusively in the hands of muslim fanatics you know.it is not? :eek:




:D :D ;) :D

it is not? :eek:




:D :D ;) :D

I know!! Its a shocker isnt it!:eek::eek:

Terrorism is not exclusively in the hands of muslim fanatics you know.

True. As anyone who was in the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, anyone who was at the Atlanta Olympics, anyone who received one of Ted Kaczynski's home made calling cards, or anyone who opened an antrax-laced letter could tell you.

The person I was talking to said to sabotage the ships, I responded that it would become terrorism.

terrorism is aimed at spreading fear through acts of violence (thus terror hence the name), sabotaging a ships rudders (however you have probably read that as sink the ship) does not spread terror

:eek: I was only talking about damaging the rudder

You see, you said sabotage, but that didn't specify how. Making the entire engine room vanish is a David Copperfield class prank, and sabotage. and possibly not terrorism.

Scuttling charges however...

Scuttling charges however...

I'd say that terrorism really has to be aimed at the civilian population as well, otherwise its more guerrilla activity at the very worst you could make it

I'd say that terrorism really has to be aimed at the civilian population as well, otherwise its more guerrilla activity at the very worst you could make it

The ships crew could arguably be called civilians unless it was a military vessel.

They must really like pepper spray. You know, there are easier ways to get extreme spiciness. :p

They must really like pepper spray. You know, there are easier ways to get extreme spiciness. :p

You mean the Goofballian way?

You mean the Goofballian way?

I don't recommend the Goofballian Way as it would stress normal friendships. My friendships are far from normal. :)

I'd say that terrorism really has to be aimed at the civilian population as well, otherwise its more guerrilla activity at the very worst you could make it

Sorry for miss understanding you, the way you phrased it I thought you meant like a bomb. But even at rudder damage they would be criminals.

sabotage =/= terrorism


Actually the as anyone who breaks laws. So every criminal is a terrorist. One site I found had this quote.

Official United States Government Definition of Terrorism

"[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."

(United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct. 19, volume 2; par. 3077, 98 STAT. 2707 [West Publishing Co., 1984])



http://yeoldeconsciousnessshoppe.com/art98.html

I don't recommend the Goofballian Way as it would stress normal friendships. My friendships are far from normal. :)

Infamy comes with its own set of friends.

Official United States Government Definition of Terrorism

"[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."

(United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct. 19, volume 2; par. 3077, 98 STAT. 2707 [West Publishing Co., 1984])The US Gov officially admits: the US Gov is a Terrorist Organization. (http://yeoldeconsciousnessshoppe.com/art98.html)

Apparently a bunch of fools are trying to stop supplies from reaching our troops in Iraq. Thats a good way of showing your support of our country. So?

I know!! Its a shocker isnt it!:eek::eek:

To Americans maybe.

To the Limeys, however, terrorism has been an ongoing part of history, and one that we've had to watch our American friends embrace and endorse until it happened to them.

To Americans maybe.

To the Limeys, however, terrorism has been an ongoing part of history, and one that we've had to watch our American friends embrace and endorse until it happened to them.

Some would call William Wallace a terrorist.
Others would call him a "hero".

*shrug*

Some would call William Wallace a terrorist.
Others would call him a "hero".

*shrug*

I was rather more thinking of things like US government officials meeting with the 'political arm' of the IRA...

I was rather more thinking of things like US government officials meeting with the 'political arm' of the IRA...

....Was that like the British supplying the UVF with explosives and technology?....the RUC/Army running sections of the UVF as death squads and supplying the weapons....the UDA able to operate legally for 25 years.....that kind of thing?

....Was that like the British supplying the UVF with explosives and technology?....the RUC/Army running sections of the UVF as death squads and supplying the weapons....the UDA able to operate legally for 25 years.....that kind of thing?

If you are implying that there might have been behind-the-scenes dealings, I doubt if you'll have many people acting too shocked. I'm not sure speculation about 'deathsquads' counts as evidence, of course. And - to be honest - there might even be some sympathies for the idea of pitting one terror group against another.

On the other hand, actual government officials attending IRA fundraisers and the like... comes across less as 'speculation', and more as clear, concise direct endorsement.

But, of course... it appears you are simply trying to divert attention from that with the 'hey, we weren't the ONLY ones' excuse. If you could even get it to stick.

The real kicker, of course, is that the US would have to admit to being part of the Axis of Evil if they were to judge their own behaviour equally... they have a history as a sponsor-state of terrorist groups. And that's the irony behind the 'war on terror' mockery when the US finally gets bitten by the monster it spends a century creating.

If you are implying that there might have been behind-the-scenes dealings, I doubt if you'll have many people acting too shocked..

I was stating, rather than implying.


I'm not sure speculation about 'deathsquads' counts as evidence, of course. And - to be honest - there might even be some sympathies for the idea of pitting one terror group against another.


O the speculation ended years ago. The ballistics of the weapons cache used in one series of killings shows quite clearly RUC/UDR/British/Loyalist collusion.
I was unaware that the members of the 'Miami Show band' were considered a "terror group", or that any of those killied in the Dublin-Monaghan bombings were either, come to that.


On the other hand, actual government officials attending IRA fundraisers and the like... comes across less as 'speculation', and more as clear, concise direct endorsement.

You're entirely sure you aren't confusing membership of Congress with membership of the US Government? I might add that appearance at a fundraiser is rather more above board and less direct than the apparent immunity to prosecution, access to weaponry and largese to kill at will provided covertly by Her Majestys servants....


The real kicker, of course, is that the US would have to admit to being part of the Axis of Evil if they were to judge their own behaviour equally... they have a history as a sponsor-state of terrorist groups. And that's the irony behind the 'war on terror' mockery when the US finally gets bitten by the monster it spends a century creating.

Of course, but Empires of any sort rarely look in the mirror.

America sucks

O the speculation ended years ago. The ballistics of the weapons cache used in one series of killings shows quite clearly RUC/UDR/British/Loyalist collusion.


We can now use ballistics to prove how a weapon was obtained?

We can now use ballistics to prove how a weapon was obtained?

No, we can use ballistics to show who was killed by it.

Below refers to the Barron inquiry.....
One of the most remarkable sections of the report is its final appendix, "information received concerning certain weapons". This is the ballistic history of seven guns and shows "the unbroken chain from gun to gun" through a series of murders and attempted murders in midUlster beginning in 1973.

The chain included, in 1975, three murders at Donnelly's bar in Silverbridge, the murders of two men at a fake UDR checkpoint, the murder of IRA man John Francis Green in the Republic, the murders of members of the Miami showband and the murder of Dorothy Trainor in Portadown. In 1976, they included the murders of three members of the Reavey family, and the attack on the Rock Bar in Tassagh.

One of the guns was found in 1979 on lands belonging to a UDR man who was convicted of UVF membership. Four men were convicted of the Rock Bar attack, all of them members of the RUC. Several of the UVF men who ambushed the Miami showband, were also in the UDR.

Barron found that it was probable the guns were kept at the farm at Glenanne belonging to James Mitchell, an RUC reservist. This farm was the hub of a group of paramilitaries and members of the security forces. Members of the group, led by a UDR man, carried out the massacres at Dublin and Monaghan. In 1978, Mitchell was convicted of storing arms for the UVF. Barron was told the explosives used in the Dublin Monaghan bombs had also been stored there.
link (http://www.tribune.ie/article.tvt?_scope=TribuneFTF&id=23418&SUBCAT=&SUBCATNAME=&DT=14/12/2003%2000:00:00&keywords=Susan%20McKay&FC=)

And who else was hanging around with the mid-ulster UVF.....Who was the then unknown man with the 'British accent' mentioned by the survivors of the Miami Showband killings......?
However, Colin Wallace, in describing Nairac as a Military Intelligence Liaison Officer (MILO) said "his duties did not involve agent handling". Nevertheless, Nairac "seems to have had close links with the Mid-Ulster UVF, including Robin Jackson and Harris Boyle". According to Wallace , "he could not have carried out this open association without official approval, because otherwise he would have been transferred immediately from Northern Ireland" [1] Wallace wrote in 1975; Nairac was on his fourth tour of duty in 1977.

Robin Jackson was implicated in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings of May 1974, and Harris Boyle was blown up by his own bomb during the Miami Showband massacre, that Nairac was also alleged to have participated in - see below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nairac

RUC, UDR, UVF and Her Majestys services. If you get a George Cross for shooting a 1970's showband, doesnt that raise the spectre of somebody trying to bump off a boyband for the chance of a Victoria? Good thing the shootings over.....

Personally, I'm going to give a big hand for the police of Olympia. They moved an illegal protest quickly, calmly, and without injuries on either side. Regardless of the political situation, they stuck to a professional position.

To Americans maybe.

To the Limeys, however, terrorism has been an ongoing part of history, and one that we've had to watch our American friends embrace and endorse until it happened to them.

Wow, you are dim, that was SARCASM.

America sucks

Your intelligent arguments and stunning debating skills bring to light how you are correct in every way:rolleyes:

No, we can use ballistics to show who was killed by it...


Then we can't use ballistics to show collusion.

[/indulging silliness]

Wow, you are dim, that was SARCASM.

Dim, you say? Well - obviously I'm not going to doubt the incisive wit of some random internet hack. I guess I must be dim, then.

Yes - you were sarcastic. But there is a very real point beneath the comedy. I'm surprised you didn't see that.

I think people are missing the point, there is a contradiction between 'supporting the troops' and 'opposing the government', these soldiers have the choice of leaving the military, they have voluntarily joined a murder organization and as such should be judged, giving them any respect is just wrong, they are sellouts to kill for money. Who cares if thousands of them die, the suffering of the Iraqis for defending against foreign imperialist aggression is far worst.

Then we can't use ballistics to show collusion.

[/indulging silliness]

A stores of weapons are kept on property owned by members of the 'security forces' who use those weapons in "paramilitary" killings in conjunction and with the co-operation of the British Army, as fully documented in the inquiry led by a sitting Judge and its "silliness"? Hmmmm. I'll be charitable and presume ignorance on your part...

If its all "silliness", what precisely is the current head of the RUC apologising over here.....?
Police colluded with loyalists behind over a dozen murders in north Belfast, a report by the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland has confirmed.
Nuala O'Loan's report said UVF members in the area committed murders and other serious crimes while working as informers for Special Branch.

It said two retired assistant chief constables refused to cooperate with the investigation.

Special Branch officers gave the killers immunity, it said. The officers ensured the murderers were not caught and even "baby-sat" them during police interviews to help them avoid incriminating themselves. The Special Branch officers "created false notes" and blocked searches for UVF weapons.

They also paid almost £80,000 to leading loyalist Mark Haddock, jailed for 10 years last November for an attack on a nightclub doorman.

Responding to the report, Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde offered an apology to the victims' families.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6286695.stm

A stores of weapons are kept on property owned by members of the 'security forces' who use those weapons in "paramilitary" killings in conjunction and with the co-operation of the British Army, as fully documented in the inquiry led by a sitting Judge and its "silliness"? Hmmmm. I'll be charitable and presume ignorance on your part...

If its all "silliness", what precisely is the current head of the RUC apologising over here.....?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6286695.stm

Ballistics didn't (doesn't... can't?) prove collusion. Your statement of fact was non-factual. Seems pretty silly to me.

Ballistics didn't (doesn't... can't?) prove collusion. Your statement of fact was non-factual. Seems pretty silly to me.

With reference to the first incidents I detailed relating to the mid-Ulster UVF, would you care to specifically go through them and outline how they are not "collusion"?

With reference to the first incidents I detailed relating to the mid-Ulster UVF, would you care to specifically go through them and outline how they are not "collusion"?

No.

You made a ridiculous statement, which has been shown to be obviously untrue.

'Ballistics' didn't show collusion. Don't show collusion. Can't show collusion.

Your statement was... well, just plain wrong.

No.


Denying the obvious by seeking possible flaws in semantics is normally the preserve of the conspiracy theorist.

Again, if - as you stated - the statement about "death squads" was speculation on my part, and, the concept was to put "one terror group against another" as you seemed to imply, then could you explain the incidents in mid-ulster, and the later incidents in North Belfast?

I think people are missing the point, there is a contradiction between 'supporting the troops' and 'opposing the government', these soldiers have the choice of leaving the military, they have voluntarily joined a murder organization and as such should be judged, giving them any respect is just wrong, they are sellouts to kill for money. Who cares if thousands of them die, the suffering of the Iraqis for defending against foreign imperialist aggression is far worst.

Well then, tell me. Was the soviet union justified in enslaving half of europe and occupying afganistan? At least we do what we do to stop terrorists and try to set up democracy's. You can't even say that much about your precious communist governments.

EDit: Admittedly we sometimes stop massacres instead of setting up democracy's but hey, potato potAto

Denying the obvious by seeking possible flaws in semantics is normally the preserve of the conspiracy theorist.


I have no idea what you are talking about.

Ballistics could show you where the shot came from... it can't even show you WHO fired the gun - much less what involvement other people had in that process.

Saying 'ballistics proves collusion' is laughable. And, obviously, wrong.

Hmm.. maybe I'm not the only one who has no idea what you are talking about.

Well then, tell me. Was the soviet union justified in enslaving half of europe and occupying afganistan? At least we do what we do to stop terrorists and try to set up democracy's. You can't even say that much about your precious communist governments.

EDit: Admittedly we sometimes stop massacres instead of setting up democracy's but hey, potato potAto

I see buffer zones and requests for aid by the legitimate government as more just reasons than the false belief that there were WMDs, and staying when none are found.

Hippie burnout professors at the Evergreen State College trying to restart radicalism. The only thing sadder than that are those who follow them. Things do need to change, but that's not how you do it anymore, and they should know better.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
.

It would be truer to say that you just don't want to address it, as you haven't done so despite the opportunities presented. Nor did you come back to clarify whether you properly distinguished between a member of congress as oppossed to a member of the US Government.

It would be truer to say that you just don't want to address it, as you haven't done so despite the opportunities presented. Nor did you come back to clarify whether you properly distinguished between a member of congress as oppossed to a member of the US Government.

It wouldn't be 'truer'... it would be almost as true.

You made a stupid statement. One easily demonstrated to be ridiculous. I'd have let it go if you hadn't turned it into a running battle. But you kept on, despite the fact that it is clearly wrong.... gradeschool clear. So - either you don't know what ballistics is (in which case, you shouldn't pretend you know what you are talking about), or you don't understand the limitations of ballistic evidence (in which case, you shouldn't pretend you know what you are talking about).

Personally, I'm inclined to think you were trying to sound clever by throwing around a technical term. Unfortunately, misuse means it backfires.

As for it being 'almost as true', as I indicated above... that's true. I don't really want to talk about any of that stuff in THIS context. Mainly because it's so off topic... and turns my aside (in response to Kontor's statement that was even more ridiculous than your own) into an entire debate... and, well hell, you don't even manage to stay on the topic of my aside!

Apparently a bunch of water drinkers are trying to stop supplies from reaching the troops in Iraq. Thats a good way of showing your support of our fascist dicktator's war of aggression. :rolleyes:'
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/200981.html

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:9)

Hippie burnout professors at the Evergreen State College trying to restart radicalism. The only thing sadder than that are those who follow them. Things do need to change, but that's not how you do it anymore, and they should know better.If change doesn't happen via civil disobedience anymore, then how does it happen?

I see buffer zones and requests for aid by the legitimate government as more just reasons than the false belief that there were WMDs, and staying when none are found.

I don't paticularly support the Iraq war and as such I was not really refering to that one. But since we are there and it would collapse into chaos and civil war if we left, we need to finish the job. As soon as its done, believe you me, I want us outta there like a road runner.

Hippie burnout professors at the Evergreen State College trying to restart radicalism. The only thing sadder than that are those who follow them. Things do need to change, but that's not how you do it anymore, and they should know better.

Hey! Norse! I always thought vikings were very interesting.

It (....) I don't really want to talk about any of that stuff in THIS context. Mainly because it's so off topic... and turns my aside (in response to Kontor's statement that was even more ridiculous than your own) into an entire debate... and, well hell, you don't even manage to stay on the topic of my aside!


It's about as 'on-topic' as your remark re who was attending various fund raisers. If you don't like the turn your own remarks take you to, perhaps you might be a biut more wary before making them....

It's about as 'on-topic' as your remark re who was attending various fund raisers. If you don't like the turn your own remarks take you to, perhaps you might be a biut more wary before making them....

Ah but it's quite one thing to imply American hypocrisy and quite another to point out Britain's. Hence, in relation to G.W. ignoring the US populace:

"Direct action often follows suppression of the popular will."

Obviously that wouldn't have been a suggested course of action for those who objected to the British presence in Aden, Hong Kong, Kenya etc. ad infinitum. By the same token, it's terrible that G.W. beat Gore because he didn't win a majority of the popular vote (even though that isn't legally necessary and has been the case before). However, despite the British head of state being a hereditary position, as was also the case for a considerable amount of time for membership of the upper house of parliament, that isn't a topic of concern for Anglophiles.

Nodinia, quite why you would imagine they would be concerned about killing Irish people is beyond me. They've been doing it for nearly a millennium, they're not likely to get a crisis of conscience now. The British are the type of people who, when caught with both hands in the cookie jar, would exclaim "Look what he's doing!"

Nodinia, quite why you would imagine they would be concerned about killing Irish people is beyond me. They've been doing it for nearly a millennium, they're not likely to get a crisis of conscience now. The British are the type of people who, when caught with both hands in the cookie jar, would exclaim "Look what he's doing!"

Indeed, indeed. Or claim that without them there would have been cookies in the first place. The greater number of them have seemed rather more sensible as the years have gone by, however. It's unfortunate that their American cousins on the right seem some 50 years behind them.

I don't paticularly support the Iraq war and as such I was not really refering to that one. But since we are there and it would collapse into chaos and civil war if we left, we need to finish the job. As soon as its done, believe you me, I want us outta there like a road runner.

I think Iraq kinda already is in Chaos and a Civil War...

I don't paticularly support the Iraq war and as such I was not really refering to that one. But since we are there and it would collapse into chaos and civil war if we left, we need to finish the job. As soon as its done, believe you me, I want us outta there like a road runner.

'Finish the job'? What job? Would you mind telling me what you see as a militarily achievable goal left for us to do in Iraq? We ousted Saddam, we demonstrated our willingness and our ability to exercise military force in the Middle East according to whimsy and by capitalized on our hegemony there to bring our allies in the region closer.

True, we also managed to incite a civil war, force the Iranians to act against us and spawned a whole new crop of 'terrorists' (insurgents/freedom fighters/rebels/heros... apply the semantics of your choosing here) who will ensure that conflict there will not end for the foreseeable future, but I'm at a loss to figure out just exactly how maintaining a military presence there is going to solve anything.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:9)

Cursed are the people who change what someone else says in their post. (me1:1)

I think Iraq kinda already is in Chaos and a Civil War...

If you think its bad now, just wait till we leave. Unless we have set them up properly that is.

If you think its bad now, just wait till we leave. Unless we have set them up properly that is.

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/middle-east/basra-attacks-down-90-since-british-troops-left-1221511.html


Don't you just love ignoring all the points that you can't refute? Perhaps if you stopped trying to fix things and just left them alone, they wouldn't be so broken.

umm this was a while ago.

I don't paticularly support the Iraq war and as such I was not really refering to that one. But since we are there and it would collapse into chaos and civil war if we left, we need to finish the job. As soon as its done, believe you me, I want us outta there like a road runner.

Although it has been said before, you should check out Basra.

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/middle-east/basra-attacks-down-90-since-british-troops-left-1221511.html


Don't you just love ignoring all the points that you can't refute? Perhaps if you stopped trying to fix things and just left them alone, they wouldn't be so broken.

Those "local security forces" were trained and protected by the United States and it's allies.

Thats a good way of showing your support of our country.

By protesting the war it seems they made it very clear that they do not support our country's policies in that regard.

Really, what part of protesting don't you understand?

Although it has been said before, you should check out Basra.

Basra? Isn't that about 99.9% Shiite?

If you think its bad now, just wait till we leave. Unless we have set them up properly that is.

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/middle-east/basra-attacks-down-90-since-british-troops-left-1221511.html


Don't you just love ignoring all the points that you can't refute? Perhaps if you stopped trying to fix things and just left them alone, they wouldn't be so broken.

Kontor just seems to be ignoring the evidence that Aggicificicerous and Kryozerkia both posted about Basra being more peaceful without foreign troops being present

It's about as 'on-topic' as your remark re who was attending various fund raisers. If you don't like the turn your own remarks take you to, perhaps you might be a biut more wary before making them....

So... you just pointed out to me the same thing I just said to you.

What's your next trick... you're going to demonstrate the wetness of water? We're going to research the religion of the Pope? See if bears really DO shit in the woods?

Kontor just seems to be ignoring the evidence that Aggicificicerous and Kryozerkia both posted about Basra being more peaceful without foreign troops being present

Please show me that article in a REAL news group, Aka, bbc or fox or abc.

Please show me that article in a REAL news group, Aka, bbc or fox or abc.

How is the Irish Independent not a real news group?

Is the Associated Press good enough for you?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071116/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_071029195407

edit:

In fact, here's one from your precious Fox

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311904,00.html

Please show me that article in a REAL news group, Aka, bbc or fox or abc.

While I have some reservations about the 'Daily Blueshirt' on some issues, I might inquire as to why you think that it isn't a valid source on this topic.....? Or is this some form of apathetic trolling on your part?>

Whats not mentioned in the article is the rock throwing and how the protestors are using children as human shields.

And it doesn't mention them eating babies or raping dogs in the street either. Damned librul media.

How is the Irish Independent not a real news group?

Is the Associated Press good enough for you?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071116/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_071029195407

edit:

In fact, here's one from your precious Fox

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311904,00.html

All right, all right I think we should pull out to, in fact I think we should pull out of every where except in the americas. In fact I don't care wheather or not they all kill themselves.